Appeal No. 2003-2105 Page 4
Application No. 08/755,928
second connecting member different from the first', wherein the source potentials
provided to the 'pads' are 'distinct' due to there being different 'connecting members,'"
(Examiner's Answer at 4), the examiner "contends that Fig. 1(d) inherently represents
such. . . ." (Id.) The appellant argues, "[i]n the absence of any reason for connecting
the Hara et al. transistors in the claimed manner, one skilled in the art would understand
that these transistors may be connected in multiple ways different from the claimed
arrangement." (Appeal Br. at 7.)
Observing that "the reference to Yukawa expressly discloses, for example in 19-
22 of Col. 1, the advantage of providing separate individual power lines for each circuit,"
(Examiner's Answer at 4), the examiner further asserts, "it would have been obvious for
one skilled in the art to use separate lines between the external supply voltage and the
circuit in the reference to Hara et al., for the expected advantage of reducing noise."
(Id.) The appellant argues, "[t]he Examiner offered no logical reason, and no such
reason is apparent, to support the conclusion that one having ordinary skill in the art
would have been impelled to provide individual power supply lines for the current mirror
circuit CM of Hara et al. (considered by the Examiner to correspond to the claimed first
circuit), and the constant current circuit 43 of Hara et al. (considered to correspond to
the claimed second circuit)." (Reply Br. at 7.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007